Hacker News Reader

Comment by fao_ | Hacker News Reader

Sorry... are you arguing for a term that separates autistic people into "productive" and "non productive" that was created by a literal Nazi?

I am autistic, pretty much all of the people I know are autistic, and even most of the people I know through my workplace are autistic (it's explicitly a neurodiverse workplace), and I've pretty much never seen anyone need to use the term "aspergers" in general conversation. As in, when talking about symptoms, when talking about diagnosis, when talking about anything to do with it, people just talk about the thing, rather than branding it as "aspergers versus autistic". I'll go further and say that, not only is it not in general parlance, but also that if you used the term "aspergers" in or around these circles, you would be lightly corrected, looked on disfavourably, or given a side-eye, at the least.

View on HN

>I am autistic, pretty much all of the people I know are autistic

I'm not trying to tell you what words you should and shouldn't use; obviously in your circumstance it's a word more likely to cause a political schism and lead to misunderstandings.

Most people, though, live in a NT-dominated culture where the terms "Aspergers" and "Autism" both carry extremely different connotations.

One invokes images of an aloof professor who has misunderstandings but means well, the other invokes images of a child that screams and shits themselves.

In this instance, describing yourself as "Autistic" has real negative consequences that can be greatly ameliorated simply by making a slightly different language choice.

The history of the word is irrelevant.

> invokes images of a child that screams and shits themselves

This is a generalized problem with the self-proclaimed neurodiversity/"autism rights" movement, though. They do very well at expressing the wishes of reasonably high-functioning folks with autistic traits, but don't seem to relate to the kids who can't speak intelligibly and spend their time banging their head against the wall any better than everyone else. Saying that "we shouldn't talk about low vs. high functioning autism, because it's more complex than that" feels like a cop out.

What is there to say about low vs. high functioning autism? People with low functioning autism can't be helped by social movements about recognizing human diversity, they can be helped by medical research and support for their parents. High functioning autism probably can't be helped by social movements either (what's the plan, to talk everybody out of using the subconscious screening system that makes them not like people with neurological disorders? can the discomfort that is felt when someone with MS is making jerky movements be reasoned out of people's guts?) but that's another question.

Maybe this debate is nothing more than a sink for the energies of people who honestly care but can't change anything, keeping them occupied until medical science sends the whole issue the way of dwarfism.

> they can be helped by medical research and support for their parents.

Many people in the "autism rights" movement oppose these things, often with strident rhetoric. They view any "medicalization" of the condition they happen to share with their lower-functioning fellows as inherently inhumane.

That sentence was in reference to helping low-functioning people with autism.

> Most people, though, live in a NT-dominated culture where the terms "Aspergers" and "Autism" both carry extremely different connotations.

All the more reason to use "autism" and push people to understand it's dynamic nature.

Pre-Godwinning the discussion doesn't raise discourse, it dumbs it down. Yes that's the history of the term but it was also the accepted term until after its removal from the DSM in 2013, and not everyone that grew up with that term is as plugged in as you and gotten the memo to moved over to the new term yet. It's fine to be angry at neurotypical people who use it as a slur, but you won't win many converts attacking people who aren't, especially using an anecdote about how you don't use the word as supporting evidence. Btw, the plural of anecdote is not anecdata which is not data.

It isn't Godwinning when an actual German Nazi is involved.

Its a goddamn name. What are we cancelling Heidegger next? Burn copies of Being and Time?

Heidegger was """cancelled""" back in his time, and he should remain so.

> actual German Nazi

Asperger was Austrian. Asperger was never a member of the Nazi party.

Impressive to make 2 errors in 3 words.

Congrats, you got me there.

It's not Godwinning something if the term is literally named after a Nazi and only came about directly as a result of a Nazi eugenics program.

> the term is literally named after a Nazi

Asperger was literally never a member of the Nazi party. So what you said it literally a lie.

This is a distinction without a difference. If someone holds Nazi beliefs and actively works with the Nazi party to achieve Nazi goals, most people would consider these people Nazis even if they didn't sign a bit of paper certifying that fact. Hans Asperger was loyal to the Nazi regime and took (horrible) actions to further the Nazi cause, and was rewarded by Nazi leadership for it.

> created by a literal Nazi

This is a literal lie.

See the wikipedia article for example.

The fact someone on the internet claimed he was german and a literal nazi is no evidence at all.

Ok, so someone above already cited how "Aspergers" is a literal, direct reference to a Nazi. My burden of proof is covered, now you have the claim and must prove it. Go on :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com